Enormous Toronto Mayor Admits Crack Smoking

[An Absent Humphrey]

I don't want to get too involved in this discussion (mainly because I have nothing to add and know woefully little on the ins and outs of the situation), but it's worth highlighting that just because someone criticises Israel that doesn't make it an anti-Semitic comment.

[SaigonSaddler]

I think Israel's constant and greedy enlargement of its territory via the vehicle of settlement has contributed significantly to the sense of injustice felt by Muslims.

[Bronshtein]

I see Mayor Ford has now admitted buying illegal drugs.

[Duff]

when I hear the constant carping about how evil Israel is because she has robustly defended herself as they do.

If it was just Israel robustly defending themselves as they did in '48, '67 to '70, or '73, I don't think you would have anywhere near as many critics. I think it too easy to see an increase in criticism and assume anti-Semitism, rather than genuine and increasing distress at the actions of Israel, as we have watched it invade Lebanon (twice) and use what is seen as excessive brutality during the first and second Intifadas, featuring a seeming disregard for civilian casualties. Plus there is the Underdog effect. Israel used to be the underdog and got a lot of sympathy as a result. Now the perception is reversed (for good reason I would say), as Israel has become by far the strongest military power in the region, has automatic support from the US and most western EU countries, along with vast amounts of financial aid that dwarfs what the Islamic countries receive. In other words, Israel got strong enough to look after itself, yet continues to receive a staggering amount of support, both financial and military, from the West, while claiming to still be the victim. When a country gets powerful enough, it doesn't need vocal support, it needs vocal criticism to hopefully keep it on the straight and narrow.

I think there is a lot of conformation bias among supporters of Israel as well, many of the critics of Israel are the same groups and people who are vocal in their criticism of pre Arab Spring Islam, you just don't make the connection when the criticism is aimed at you.

(I'm still going to shout every time someone casually says Israel is responsible for everything bad in the region though )

And if anyone is making that claim I will cheerfully join you in shouting at them.

[da_bish]

daBish: Yes we are, (a mass of contradictions) and you're right there are a lot of what Americans would call 'liberal' and I would call 'lefty' Jews about (guilty - yes and law school as well (bloody stereotype)) who are tough on criticism of Israel. I don't find it right wing to support Israel though - I'm much more a socialist Zionist/kibbutznic than a Haredim (who mostly won't fight for what they believe in and are partly why we got shafted for so long in Europe - especially the 30s/40s).

That's the argument lots of my lefty Jewish friends make too in supporting Israel -- that the politics of Israel and certain social policies lean leftish/socialist, so they are ok defending the state.

As a non-Jew (although a parent of two half-Jews), I can't really buy that, nor the arguments that Israel is the best bet in the region because it's the only democracy in the region. The same arguments could have been made of Apartheid era South Africa. "It's a democracy, and, well, just look at the ghastly governments of other African countries. Who should we be supporting?" Bit of a false opposition IMO -- I don't think these arguments would have gained much traction with any of my lefty Jewish friends re South Africa, but then they would make precisely the same arguments about Israel, largely due, I think, to their emotional attachment to the country.

The fact is though that from the start, no matter what its internal policies, Israel has been just a twist on typical European colonialism, and there's nothing lefty about that!

Even in the very first campaigns it was all about helping themselves to what the Arabs had -- the old saw is that the nefarious Arab League convened to destroy the new Jewish state, but what the league actually did was put together forces to protect the land that was set aside for the Arabs in the UN resolution. They did this because the zionist forces made it quite clear that they intended to attack and occupy the land set aside for the Arabs in the plan -- Ben-gurion's diaries openly state this, that they embraced the resolution as a "foot in the door" but that they planned to use it only as a step-off point.

And that is exactly what they did. In the first 48 hours after Israel declared its formation something like 80% of the combat took place on land that had been set aside for the Arabs in the UN Resolution, because Israeli forces crossed over to occupy it. It's been the consistent pattern since then -- people of European origin helping themselves to the land of others because they judged themselves more "civilised" or "deserving" of it. Constant attacks, territorial aggrandisement and bullying, invariably accompanied by a public relations campaign to blame the Arabs who had just been attacked. Of course, Arab bombast (and it's usually nothing more than that) played, and continues to play, right into Israel's hands. They really are hopeless.

The argument that Israel is a response to the Nazi genocide campaign against the Jews (called, grotesquely, the Holocaust -- as some rabbis point out, this is obscene, as a holocaust in Judaism is a purifying fire) isn't really very persuasive either. I mean, it's not as if the peaceful Arab villagers in Palestine were the perpetrators. They were so harmless the Ottomans actually had to bring foreigners in to garrison the region (Circassians -- they are still there). And sadly, when the storm clouds were gathering over Europe in the late 30s, the Zionists in Palestine fiercely blocked efforts to settle the European Jews elsewhere -- Ben-Gurion said that he'd rather see half of European Jewry perish than be settled anywhere but Israel. But the most basic answer to the argument that Israel was a response to the Holocaust is "two wrongs don't make a right."

In the end I think it's just very tribal (pardon the expression), this defence of Israel by otherwise "liberal"/left-leaning people. Reminds me of the "Log Cabin Republicans" in the states -- gay republicans. They are conservative on basically every political issue, except gay rights! Makes me smile it does -- human nature in action.

[Bronshtein]

That's the argument lots of my lefty Jewish friends make too in supporting Israel -- that the politics of Israel and certain social policies lean leftish/socialist, so they are ok defending the state.

Not the argument I made. I think Israel has lurched to the right because of the anti-Israel swing of the EU and some Americans. I'd like them to have the chance to lurch left again.

nor the arguments that Israel is the best bet in the region because it's the only democracy in the region. The same arguments could have been made of Apartheid era South Africa. "It's a democracy, and, well, just look at the ghastly governments of other African countries. Who should we be supporting?"

We must move in different left wing circles Never heard white South Africa described as a democracy.

Bit of a false opposition IMO -- I don't think these arguments would have gained much traction with any of my lefty Jewish friends re South Africa, but then they would make precisely the same arguments about Israel, largely due, I think, to their emotional attachment to the country

I don't have the slightest desire to paint Israel as some sort of democratic make-weight to the dictatorial and feudal psychopaths who run most Arab states (the Arab 'Spring' worked out well don't you think?). I don't support Israel in the hope her democracy will rub off on the locals. She is a democracy and I think letting democracies get annihilated by religious loons is a 'bad thing'.

The fact is though that from the start, no matter what its internal policies, Israel has been just a twist on typical European colonialism, and there's nothing lefty about that!

If there had never been any Jews in Israel, if there hadn't been a continuous Jewish presence throughout the Byzantine period, the Caliphate, the Ottoman Empire and the UN British Mandate you may conceivably have a point. Otherwise I'm afraid its propaganda again.

Even in the very first campaigns it was all about helping themselves to what the Arabs had -- the old saw is that the nefarious Arab League convened to destroy the new Jewish state, but what the league actually did was put together forces to protect the land that was set aside for the Arabs in the UN resolution. They did this because the zionist forces made it quite clear that they intended to attack and occupy the land set aside for the Arabs in the plan -- Ben-gurion's diaries openly state this, that they embraced the resolution as a "foot in the door" but that they planned to use it only as a step-off point.

Well we'll never really know want would have happened if everybody had stuck to the UN resolution because the Arabs did exactly what they said they would and tried to drive the Zionists into the sea. Too bad the massively financed and supported Israelis drove back the poor underfed Arabs (as if )

And that is exactly what they did. In the first 48 hours after Israel declared its formation something like 80% of the combat took place on land that had been set aside for the Arabs in the UN Resolution, because Israeli forces crossed over to occupy it.

Because unlike wargaming its real life or death. You don't wait for the other guys first move - I've covered this.

It's been the consistent pattern since then -- people of European origin helping themselves to the land of others because they judged themselves more "civilised" or "deserving" of it.

And Mizrahim thanks to the expulsions from Arab lands as promised by Egypt et al before 48.

Constant attacks, territorial aggrandisement and bullying, invariably accompanied by a public relations campaign to blame the Arabs who had just been attacked. Of course, Arab bombast (and it's usually nothing more than that) played, and continues to play, right into Israel's hands. They really are hopeless.

As the saying goes they only need to get lucky once.

The argument that Israel is a response to the Nazi genocide campaign against the Jews (called, grotesquely, the Holocaust -- as some rabbis point out, this is obscene, as a holocaust in Judaism is a purifying fire) isn't really very persuasive either.

Shoa or Shoah - catastrophe or calamity. And I don't think I said Israel was a response to it. I said Zionists used the guilt as a lever to get what they had always wanted, well before the Germans went mad. Some people may say it was a response. I think the Balfour declaration got put in practice because of the Shoah, otherwise it would have shuffled away with so many forgotten British promises about the Middle East. But that's about it.

I mean, it's not as if the peaceful Arab villagers in Palestine were the perpetrators. They were so harmless the Ottomans actually had to bring foreigners in to garrison the region (Circassians -- they are still there).

You bring in foreigners to guard part of an Empire because you can't trust the locals to police themselves.

And sadly, when the storm clouds were gathering over Europe in the late 30s, the Zionists in Palestine fiercely blocked efforts to settle the European Jews elsewhere -- Ben-Gurion said that he'd rather see half of European Jewry perish than be settled anywhere but Israel. But the most basic answer to the argument that Israel was a response to the Holocaust is "two wrongs don't make a right."

Didn't say it made it right but it sure made a lot of us realise that waiting for God to sort out the morality was leaving a vacuum for somebody else to step in.

In the end I think it's just very tribal (pardon the expression), this defence of Israel by otherwise "liberal"/left-leaning people. Reminds me of the "Log Cabin Republicans" in the states -- gay republicans. They are conservative on basically every political issue, except gay rights! Makes me smile it does -- human nature in action.

Not sure you bothered to read my comments about the need for Israeli political change - we could do with another Arik Sharon. But whilst I would make changes I think any of us who have a connection - Jew/part Jew (what is that? do you only do half the Shabbat? ) ethnic, Orthodox, Reform have a duty to press for change but also to defend Israael's existence otherwise we won't have an Israeli State to make atonement. All we'll have is a pile of corpses again. Because although the willing dupes just want everyone to have a group hug and be friends, the people peddling that trash want Israel, the Zionists, the Haredim, the Reform Jews, half Jews and 'ethnically tainted Jews' on the same funeral pyre.

[Duff]

If there had never been any Jews in Israel, if there hadn't been a continuous Jewish presence throughout the Byzantine period, the Caliphate, the Ottoman Empire and the UN British Mandate you may conceivably have a point. Otherwise I'm afraid its propaganda again.

There were more Jews living in Britain than in Palestine for the entirety of the C19. A ridiculous response.

Because unlike wargaming its real life or death. You don't wait for the other guys first move - I've covered this.

You can use that fallacious argument to justify anything Broney: "We had to kill all the children as well, or they would have grown up and attacked us in revenge", "Of course we launched our nukes first, they would have knocked our silos out if we hadn't". It's a morally bankrupt, contemptible little argument and beneath you.

we could do with another Arik Sharon.

The same Sharon that led the troops that committed the Qibya massacre and was "directly responsible" for the Sabra and Shatila massacres in the Lebanon you mean? How about another Begin, he could use his experience blowing up hotels to help build bridges. Israel could certainly do with some leadership with Sharon's plans to pull out of the West Bank and the balls to actually get it done, but it would be better served with a less divisive figure.

Because although the willing dupes just want everyone to have a group hug and be friends, the people peddling that trash want Israel, the Zionists, the Haredim, the Reform Jews, half Jews and 'ethnically tainted Jews' on the same funeral pyre.

You're talking like it is still 1973 again.

[Bronshtein]

There were more Jews living in Britain than in Palestine for the entirety of the C19. A ridiculous response.

No more ridiculous than the claim Zionism was European Colonialism. We could argue about the numbers of Jews in Israel in the nineteenth century but the point is however few they were there, and always had been despite attempts to eradicate them at various times. The point is this wasn't a movement of Europeans for financial, territorial and dynastic gain, it was a return of a dispersed people - Next Year in Jerusalem.

Because unlike wargaming its real life or death. You don't wait for the other guys first move - I've covered this.

You can use that fallacious argument to justify anything Broney: "We had to kill all the children as well, or they would have grown up and attacked us in revenge", "Of course we launched our nukes first, they would have knocked our silos out if we hadn't". It's a morally bankrupt, contemptible little argument and beneath you.

No. I'm sorry but Meir waited for the first move by the enemy in 73 and nearly lost Israel. In 48 there was no margin of land to lose like 73. We had to fight on their land. We had so little that if we had waited until they'd attacked all the settlements we'd all be dead - there was no real army, no air force and no support. It had to be fought as it was. That doesn't justify what you said and don't pretend that it was what I said.

The same Sharon that led the troops that committed the Qibya massacre and was "directly responsible" for the Sabra and Shatila massacres in the Lebanon you mean? How about another Begin, he could use his experience blowing up hotels to help build bridges. Israel could certainly do with some leadership with Sharon's plans to pull out of the West Bank and the balls to actually get it done, but it would be better served with a less divisive figure.

First: The Sharon who pulled out of Gaza and planned to pull out of the West Bank.
Secondly: The Sharon who proved in court he wasn't responsible for Sabra and Shatila - the only reason he didn't collect the cash was because in US Law you have to prove malice for a libel and Time Magazine got off on that technicality.

You're talking like it is still 1973 again.

I see no evidence that Islamic opinion is softening on Israel's existence. I see a more cunning positioning and posturing to get Israel's supporters to abandon her. Why should Israel feel comfortable? It isn't 73 because Israel is strong and the Arabs are currently falling apart under their own internal problems. What happens when they are over their 'Spring' and under militant Islamist rule? And the EU has run off mumbling about Palestinian rights? Then it will 73 with no airlift of resupply if we aren't careful.

[Duff]

No more ridiculous than the claim Zionism was European Colonialism. We could argue about the numbers of Jews in Israel in the nineteenth century but the point is however few they were there, and always had been despite attempts to eradicate them at various times. The point is this wasn't a movement of Europeans for financial, territorial and dynastic gain, it was a return of a dispersed people - Next Year in Jerusalem.

You don't get to leave for 1500 years, then turn up and turf off the current inhabitants. Your not Bilbo Baggins foiling the Sackville Bagginses plot to get his home. They aren't squatters and you have no legal or moral claim to the land. The Israelis who fought in '48 were by a huge proportion Europeans. They were colonising a foreign country. That, by definition, is European colonialism. It might not have been financial or dynastically motivated but it certainly was for territorial gain.

No. I'm sorry but Meir waited for the first move by the enemy in 73 and nearly lost Israel. In 48 there was no margin of land to lose like 73. We had to fight on their land. We had so little that if we had waited until they'd attacked all the settlements we'd all be dead - there was no real army, no air force and no support. It had to be fought as it was. That doesn't justify what you said and don't pretend that it was what I said.

It's a shitty little argument Broney.

First: The Sharon who pulled out of Gaza and planned to pull out of the West Bank.

As I said.

Secondly: The Sharon who proved in court he wasn't responsible for Sabra and Shatila - the only reason he didn't collect the cash was because in US Law you have to prove malice for a libel and Time Magazine got off on that technicality.

Actually it was the Kahan Commission, established by the Israeli Govt, that found Sharon personally responsible "for ignoring the danger of bloodshed and revenge" and "not taking appropriate measures to prevent bloodshed" in '82

It isn't 73 because Israel is strong and the Arabs are currently falling apart under their own internal problems. What happens when they are over their 'Spring' and under militant Islamist rule?

You assume that rhetorical support for Palestine (which is all it ever really gets it should be noted, the monetary aid is a pittance and there is no military aid from anywhere bar a trickle from some of the more militant parts of Islam) equates to a lack of physical support for Israel, when Israel is the one that gets the real economic and military support from Europe and the US. Also, if the situation changed and Israel was to face an actual threat of invasion, there would be an immediate 180 degree about turn in even the rhetoric.

Then it will 73 with no airlift of resupply if we aren't careful.

Horseshit, the aid response would be even greater than before, and far more effective. The US and EU would drop everything and come to the rescue, and the Islamic nations surrounding Israel are fully aware of it.

[SaigonSaddler]

I'm with Duff here.

He's stating exactly the same things I would say. Is it possible to isolate the Jewish religion and ethnic identity from the political entity that is Israel? Of course it is.

Israel is continually stealing land. It's been doing it for years and there is no excuse. Thieves.